Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to press his case against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the target of Republican criticism for initially claiming that the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi were inspired by spontaneous protests to an anti-Islamic video. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rices potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.

Host Soledad OBrien challenged Burgess opposition to Susan Rice, noting that Republicans had supported Condoleezza Rices nomination as Secretary of State in 2005, despite the Bush administrations role in the massive intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Burgess struggled to explain the contradiction. He initially claimed that the media was far more critical of Bushs intelligence failures than Obama, but when OBrien laughed away that claim, he told her to take up the question with Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom supported Condoleezza but now oppose Susan:

OBRIEN: I have asked others before how this does not compare, the Susan Rice issue, to the Condoleezza Rice issue on weapons of mass destruction. She was also wrong when she was the national security adviser, right? Fast forward three years in 2005 when she was up to be secretary of state, it was Lindsey Graham who was furious that the Democrats were pushing back. It was Sen John mccain who were furious that the Democrats were pushing back on Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. She was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?

BURGESS: The difference is the scrutiny provided by our free press in this country. Condoleezza Rice was exposed to withering criticism by the press. I dont see that happening now. Maybe Ive missed something in the talking points, but I dont see that happening. .

OBRIEN: So youre confusing me there for a moment. When you say the scrutiny on the press  are you saying five days after comments of weapons of mass destruction, you feel like the media was picking apart Condoleezza Rice? I dont think thats true, Sir. Most people say thats not the case. It took a long time. . Hey, Im all about scrutiny. I guess I like consistency, too. You were not calling for more scrutiny and you werent saying that the fact that Condoleezza Rice was wrong on weapons of mass destruction was going to damage her credibility as secretary of state. Again, McCain and Lindsey Graham were supporting that. It seems contradictory to me.

BURGESS: Youll have to take that up with Senator McCain and Senator Graham.​

The difference between Susan Rice and Condoleeza Rice is Susan Rice already knew what happened and the white house watched the attack as it went down. Susan Rice knew, or should have known, that the consulate personnel had begged for help for months. The Red Cross and the British had already gotten their people out. Only the US insisted that the personnel stay because the US intended at all times that thirty people be murdered. Not four. Those are the ones that actually died. The intent was that all 30 be killed. Why? What propaganda purpose would such a slaughter serve this royal regime?

. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rices potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.

Click to expand...

Do you think the Republicans in the House know they have no say in who is appointed U.N. Ambassador?

. Burgess joined 97 House Republicans in opposing Rices potential nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, even though her public statements about the incident originated from unclassified talking points provided by the intelligence community.

Click to expand...

Do you think the Republicans in the House know they have no say in who is appointed U.N. Ambassador?

Click to expand...

Probably because they appoint people like Bachmann to sit on the intelligence committee.

Suzzy Rice was some ambassador to the UN that had no business in this matter to begin with as we HAVE a Sec. of State...where the hell was she?

this is what's wrong with you people, you will the the word of some cnn host over common sense

Click to expand...

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a U.N. Treaty you dumb ass. To say that the U.N. Ambassador has no business to comment on the violation of a U.S. diplomatic mission is the height of retardation.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!